It is a valuable new addition to the Project, and it is commendable that it has been made publicly and easily available so swiftly after the appearance of the Yunusbayev et al. (2011) paper.

To get the ball rolling on the new Yunusbayev et al. data, I will map the new populations onto the Dodecad v3 components; they will be added to the Dodecad v3 spreadsheet as they are calculated.

I have been laboriously designing a new global (including Amerindians and Australasians) Dodecad X1experimental calculator with 3,010 individuals for a few weeks now, but I guess I will now have to reboot it with 3,214.

Together with some other new data I recently discovered, I now have 9,799 individuals (some duplicates from different sources) in my global database. My Dodecad dataset of 511 individuals from a single country or ethnic group isn't too shabby either. Let's hope for a new data release that will push the data collection above the magic 10,000.

UDDATE:

I have added the first 7 populations to the spreadsheet; the others are being calculated as we speak. Most of them seem in line with expectations, but the Abkhasian sample has one outlier individual (abh27), and has thus been placed in the "Outliers" tab of the spreadsheet; a new set of admixture proportions, minus that outlier individual, will be calculated anew:

UPDATE II: The population portraits have been uploaded to Google Docs as a rar file (Sendspace mirror). Average admixture results have all been entered to the spreadsheet.

May I ask how many SNPs are tested of the new populations in the study (not taken from Behar, etc) and do they match exactly the 23andMe data.There is some difference between Bulgarians_D and Bulgarians_Y. How were the samples collected, from one place or around Bulgaria?

Ukrainians' higher West/East European ratio makes perfect sense as it is transitional to both the Caucasus (where there are even higher such ratios) and to the Balkans. Their ratio is exactly what one might expect from their geographical position vis a vis. Russians, Belorussians, and Balts, i.e., populations with a high E/W ratio.

Mordvins are also in line with other Uralic populations (Finns, Selkups) in having an inverted W/E European ratio relative to Balto-Slavs.

May I ask how many SNPs are tested of the new populations in the study (not taken from Behar, etc) and do they match exactly the 23andMe data.

The new populations are tested on a high density Illumina chip and have most of the 166k markers used in Dodecad v3.

By the way, Ukrainians can't be transitional between the Balkans and the Caucasus, because there's a sharp genetic barrier between Ukraine and Caucasus. Indeed, as the recent study shows, these Ukrainians have no clear links with the Caucasus at all, which is basically the main premise of that study.

In that case, your West European cluster is just a general West Eurasian cluster that hasn't been broken down properly.

No, it is not a general West Eurasian cluster. It is a cluster that peaks in Western Europe, is clinal away from Western Europe, and is largely absent in parts of the Near East.

Also, I wouldn't be talking about "breaking down properly" if I were you, since according to your "test" calculator some of my Anatolian and half-Anatolian participants are apparently more "West European" than "West Asian".

But I think the problem is deeper than that, and it seems you've picked up a signal from the Behar Belorussian set.

Incorrect, and easily refuted by inspection of the Belorussian population portrait.

By the way, Ukrainians can't be transitional between the Balkans and the Caucasus, because there's a sharp genetic barrier between Ukraine and Caucasus. Indeed, as the recent study shows, these Ukrainians have no clear links with the Caucasus at all, which is basically the main premise of that study.

Again incorrect. Ukrainians show some "medium blue" component that is lacking in Russians and Lithuanians, so they are indeed transitional to the Balkans and the Caucasus.

This is quite consistent with my results, as the "West European" is most similar to the "East European", but shifted towards West Asians.

Dienekes, I think Davidski is right in the sense that the v3 K=12 West_European component is indeed some sort of generic West-Eurasian component, perhaps dating back to the Neolithic period. South Asians at K=12 have less West Asian admixture than they did in your initial K=10 analysis (are you considering releasing a DIY calculator based on that?). The old West-Asian component seems to have redistributed itself partially to the Mediterranean and West_European components of Dodecad v3. Why else would WEU find such a high incidence among South Asians?

the v3 K=12 West_European component is indeed some sort of generic West-Eurasian component

All components are "generic" in the sense that they have non-zero frequency almost everywhere in Eurasia. They are also "informative" in the sense that they have very high frequency somewhere (e.g., in Western Europe) and very low elsewhere (e.g., in the Near East).

Why else would WEU find such a high incidence among South Asians?

The West European component occurs in the likely source populations for the West Eurasian component of South Asians, so it would be surprising if it weren't found among them.

Actually, it's quite useful because, together with the paucity of the Southwest Asian and Mediterranean components and the high W/E European ratio, it constrains the origin of the West Eurasian component in South Asians geographically.

It does seem that there is a common element in the ancestry of West Europeans and South Asians. I was the first one to notice it as the "Dagestan component", and subsequent experiments clearly indicate that there is a link between both Western Europe and South Asia with West Asia. Not only do both regions have some of the "West Asian" component, but the "Western European" component is (distance-wise) shifted towards West Asia (relative to the East European one), and the "South Asian" component is closest to the West Asian one than to any other Caucasoid component.

These results clearly reveal that Turks of Anatolia and Balkans are descended from Turkmens.

If you compare Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian percentages, a common methodology followed by Dienekes, then we can see that Anatolian Turks, on average, are 1/3 to 1/2 Turkmen.

This is a very important result suggesting a strong genetic continuity among the Oghuz branch speakers of Turkic languages. In Anatolia and Balkans what happened was not a mere language replacement but a genuine mass immigration of Turkmens from Central Asia into Anatolia and Balkans, evidenced by common traditions, language and culture.

What is apparent from these results is that Turkmens have substantial non-Turkic admixture; their East Eurasian components are practically identical to the Indo-European Tajiks; it seems the latter have kept their Iranic tongue, while the Turkmen experienced a language shift.

I agree with Dienekes that Turkmenistan looks to be mostly Turkifeid Iranians.

-Anatolian Turkmen- You cannot use Turkmenistan as a reference for your Turkic ancestry as thats not the region where Turks originated and Turkmenistan was not fully Turkifeid untill after Turks were in Anatolia. Anatolian Turks cluster much closer to Armenians and Georgians then they to Central Asia Turks, you should use Uzbeks and other Turks of Central Asia who have higher Turkic ancestry.

Modern-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan are largely descended from the pre-Turkic locals of what is now Turkmenistan. This is because the original Turkmens, who migrated from what is now Kazakhstan to what is now Turkmenistan, present-day Azeri lands and Anatolia within the 11th to the 13th centuries (Seljuq times), were a relatively small population and so gradually within the last 1000 years heavily admixed with and assimilated the locals in what is now Turkmenistan, present-day Azeri lands and Anatolia, all of which were completely non-Turkic-speaking lands before the migration of the original Turkmens. Thus modern-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan cannot genetically (or culturally and linguistically) represent the original Turkmens that migrated to Anatolia during the Seljuq times, as the original Turkmens have to be much more Mongoloid in their genetics than modern-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan, who are a result of the heavy admixture of the original Turkmens with the exclusively Iranic-speaking locals of what is now Turkmenistan within the last 1000 years.

Dienekes,According to you there is always elite dominance whenever the language in question is Turkish.

At first it was elite dominance in Anatolia.

Now that it seems Turkmens, Turks' Oghuz ancestors, turn out to be genetically very similar to Anatolian Turks you suggest there was a language shift in Turkmenistan.

This very well may be true but this approach associates Turkic languages with only Asiatic genes which need not be the case.

The Northeast Asian and Southeast Asian genetic components in Anatolian Turks is about 1/3 to 1/2 of Turkmens' from Turkmenistan. At the minimum this analysis reveals that Turkish speaking Turkmens flooded Anatolia in large numbers. This is significant in terms of understanding the spread of Turkish in Ottoman Empire. This shift seems to be the result of immigration rather than elite dominance.

Remember when you tried to understand Anatolian Turks' admixture using our neighbors from Greece, Syria, Armenia, Iran, etc. along with Uzbeks.

Once you replace Uzbeks with Turkmens it becomes clear that Anatolian and Balkan Turks are about 30% Turkmen.

This is what we have been saying all along. Turks of Turkey were not Kazakhs. We speak an Oghuz dialect similar to Azeris of Iran and Azerbaijan as well as Turkmens of Turkmenistan and this link is quite clear from the genetic data.

Dienekes,According to you there is always elite dominance whenever the language in question is Turkish.

It is not according to "me". Whenever geneticists and anthropologists have published on the subject (I've posted on the subject recently on my other blog), they have generally agreed that Turkish speakers are predominantly descended from indigenous populations and not from incoming Central Asian Turkic speakers. The data seems to confirm that intuition, as Turks are at the western end of a long cline going all the way to the locations likely to be Turkic homelands.

Now that it seems Turkmens, Turks' Oghuz ancestors, turn out to be genetically very similar to Anatolian Turks you suggest there was a language shift in Turkmenistan.

First of all, Turkmens do not turn out to be very similar. They have substantially more "South Asian", substantially less "Mediterranean" than Turks etc.

You yourself admit, even with your inflated figures, that 2/3 of Anatolian Turks are non-Turkic in origin, which they have apparently picked up in the last 1,000 years. And, then, you go on that modern-day Turkmen are carbon copies of the Turks c. 1,000 years ago and treat them as living fossils to calculate the extent of Turkic admixture in modern-day Turks. On the contrary, if you accept that Anatolian Turks have 2/3 admixture from pre-Turkic groups over the last 1,000 years, you must also accept that Turkmen have some admixture over the same period of time, and the pre-Turkic groups in the area they now live were Iranic-speaking.

... we observe that Turkmen fall along a line linking Uzbeks with Iranians; Turks along a line linking Uzbeks with Armenians and Georgians; Nogays along a line linking Uzbeks and North Caucasus populations; Chuvashs along a line linking Uzbeks with Russians.

The results are pretty clear, that Western Eurasian Turkic groups have all underwent varying admixture with their respective West Eurasian host populations.

On the other hand, if we extend a line from Turks through Turkmens, we reach Balochs and other Indus Basin populations. We can all agree, I hope, that that is not where Turkic speakers originated.

Anatolian Turkmen, you don't understand genetics and history. Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan were all Turkified at the same time: within the last 1000 years following the the migration of Seljuqs and their Turkmens to Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan within the 11th to the 13th centuries (they first arrived in Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan in the 11th century, thus during the same century, and migration to those lands must have happened more within the 11th to the middle of 12th centuries, when the Great Seljuq Empire still existed, than within the mid-12th to the 13th centuries, when the Great Seljuq Empire had dissolved). Before the original Turkmen migration to Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan during the Seljuq times, Anatolia, what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan were all completely inhabited by non-Turkic-speaking peoples and the original Turkmens almost completely lived in what is now Kazakhstan. Thus modern-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan cannot genetically (or culturally and linguistically) represent the original Turkmens that migrated to Anatolia (concurrent with their migrations to what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan) during the Seljuq times, as the original Turkmens that migrated to Anatolia (concurrent with their migrations to what is now Azeri lands and what is now Turkmenistan) have to be much more Mongoloid in their genetics and appearance than modern-day Turkmens of Turkmenistan, who are the result of the heavy admixture of the original Turkmens (who, as I said, first arrived in what is now Turkmenistan in the 11th century with the Seljuq/original Turkmen migration from what is now Kazakhstan) with the exclusively Iranic-speaking locals of what is now Turkmenistan within the last 1000 years.

Most of the other componenets like the East and West Euro, Mediterranean, West Asian which were likely present in similar numbers among Anatolians before the Turkic invasion.

You should not use Turkmenistan as the model for your Turkic ancestry as even on Dr.Mcdonalds map, Anatolian Turks are in between Armeniens and Georgians, if their was large Central Asian mixture he would of detected it, which he does not.

You claim you have ancestryl ties to Khorasan/Turkmenistan, then you should lean more towards Central Asia then most Iranians, which near all Turks do not.

It is not according to "me". Whenever geneticists and anthropologists have published on the subject (I've posted on the subject recently on my other blog), they have generally agreed that Turkish speakers are predominantly descended from indigenous populations and not from incoming Central Asian Turkic speakers.

This is what Mr. Metspalu, one of the lead authors of both the Behar et al. 2010 and Yunusbayev 2011 papers, wrote to me on the topic of Turkification based on their genetic analysis results of the Behar/Yunusbayev Turks, who are all Turks exclusively from the historic Cappadocia region, during our 3-month and still continuing email correspondence:

"I will not have a final answer - especially what concerns exact percentages. A lot has been done on this using uniparental markers and the actual share of lineages originating from the East (meaning carried by people into modern Turkey) has been found to be small (5% in mtDNA if I remember correctly). The same is true when you look at the whole genome level. The share of both the Siberian and East Asian components is minute. Combined, less than 10%. However, looking at the immediate neighbors Syria, Lebanon, Kurds (we have only Kazakhstan Kurds but Kurds nonetheless), Iran, Greeks, Balkans we see that they don't have the East Asian components (mostly it is the Siberian one in Turks) nearly at all. Russians on the other side of the Black Sea have a bit more of that Siberian component than Turks. The proportions of the Indus-Caucasus; Mediterranean and North European components are expectable, following the clines from the centers of these components.

Specific Arab influence seems small because they tend to carry a small fraction of Bantu component and this is lacking in Turkey.

So it is clear that language change through elite dominance has been a major player in what is now Turkey." [all emphases mine]

I also asked Mr. Metspalu whether it is correct to say based on the Behar/Yunusbayev Turkish genetic results that all of the non-Mongoloid ADMIXTURE analysis components of Turks are in the range expected from their current geographical location. In response, he wrote:

"It does seems so. But I have to say that we have not focussed specifically on Turks in our analyses (hence the not too wide sampling)."

Here, by writing "but I have to say that we have not focussed specifically on Turks in our analyses (hence the not too wide sampling)", he is referring to the fact that the Behar/Yunusbayev Turkish samples exclusively come from the historic Cappadocia region and thus cannot represent the overall ethnic Turkish genetic variation. The Dodecad Turks and the Eurogenes Turks can represent the overall ethnic Turkish genetic variation much better than the Behar/Yunusbayev Turks as both the Dodecad and the Eurogenes Turkish populations are composed of Turkish samples from the whole geographical range of the ethnic Turks.

Turkmens are Iranian folks (khwarezmians and dahaes) that used to spoke Iranian languages till the 11 th century (only in the 13 th century did Turk texts being written in what is nowadays Turkmenistan)30 thousand Turkmen4 male warriors (please see the book below)that migrated to 8-12 mln Anatolia did not and cannot kill all Anatolian christians

http://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/default.asp?id=89658

Also statistically Turkmen hg's and autosomal makeup dont match Anatolian ones but will match persian and balush speaking north-khorassanian ones(except perhaps a few additional mongoloid C3c Y-DNA)If there would be testing of north Khorassan Persians they will show as much (if not more) mongoloid input than Turkmens+caucasus indo-european iranian ossetians have nearly as high mongoloid input as Turkmens but there is no correlation between mongoloid input and identity shifting see iranian Hazaras who are nearly 50% mongoloidTHE SOLE CONCLUSION WE COULD SAY IS THAT AS EXPECTED TURKMENS ARE THE CONTINUATION (CULTURALLY AND GENETICALLY) OF INDO-EUROPEAN IRANIAN KHWAREZMIANS AND DAHAESModern Turkmens are Turkmen speaking Iranians and are different from 11th century Turkmens who should be genetically identical to modern kazakhsnomad oghuz turkmens and oghuz salars as well as oghuz turkmens from uzbekistan would surely be more mongoloid than the tested turkmens of yunusbayev(probably sedentary ones from merv or eshqabad)also Oghuz turkish derives from karakhanid turkish and by the 11-13 th centuries it did not yet distincly develop out of karakhanid Turkish (see book below)

http://www.pandora.com.tr/urun/turkic-languages/40076

Even if we take turkmen speaking khwarezmian iranian settled populations (aka turkmens) they dont fit with a paradigma of anatolianX turkmen mixing(according to a 3/1 ratio) becauseARMENIANS[as anatolian matrix]=(1.5EEU+4WEU+28MED+50WAS+3SAS+1MONG+12.5SWAS) X TURKMENS(6EEU+10WEU+14MED+34WAS+13SAS+17MONG+6SWAS)[3/1 ratio]=/=TURKS(6EEU+7WEU+28.5MED+41.5WAS+2.5SAS+5.5MONG+9SWAS) BUT=4.5EEU+6WEU+23.5MED+44WAS+6SAS+5.5MONG+10.5SWASIE SOME COMPONENTS ARE MORE AND OTHER ARE LESS THAN INSPECTED=>THERE IS NO A LINEAR CLINE

Onur the critical point is this: Turks of Turkey trace their roots to Turkmenistan.

You claim there were no Turks until the 11th century in Turkmenistan. However we know that Arab armies invaded Turks in Turkmenistan in the 7th century not Persians. Turkification took place first in Turkmenistan but then these Turks conquered Anatolia. The genetic evidence seems to suggest that the mass immigration from Turkmen lands to Anatolia must have been 30 to 50% of the initial Anatolian population. You seem to know no history and genetics. You keep re-writing history per your wishes taking the Turkmens to Kazakhstan. Then why on earth are there three main Turkic language groups? One being Oghuz that is distinctively spoken by Turkmen, Azeris and Turks.

HistoryMain article: History of Turkmenistan

The territory of Turkmenistan has a long and checkered history, as armies from one empire after another decamped there on their way to more prosperous territories. The region's written history begins with its conquest by the Achaemenid Empire of ancient Persia, as the region was divided between the satrapies of Margiana, Khorezm and Parthia.[citation needed]

Alexander the Great conquered the territory in the 4th century BC on his way to Central Asia, around the time that the Silk Road was established as a major trading route between Asia and the Mediterranean Region.[citation needed]

Approximately 80 years later, Persia's Parthian Kingdom established its capital in Nisa, now in the suburbs of the capital, Ashgabat. After replacement of the Parthian empire by Persian Sassanids, another native Iranian dynasty, the region remained territory of the Persian empire for several centuries.[7]

In the 7th century AD, Arabs conquered this region, bringing with them Islam and incorporating the Turkmen into the greater Middle Eastern culture.[citation needed] The Turkmenistan region soon came to be known as the capital of Greater Khorasan, when the caliph Al-Ma'mun moved his capital to Merv.[citation needed]Magtymguly Pyragy

In the middle of the 11th century, the Turkoman-ruled Seljuk Empire concentrated its strength in the territory of modern Turkmenistan in an attempt to expand into Khorasan (modern Afghanistan). The empire broke down in the second half of the 12th century, and the Turkmen lost their independence when Genghis Khan took control of the eastern Caspian Sea region on his march west.

For the next seven centuries, the Turkmen people lived under various empires and fought constant inter-tribal wars. Little is documented of Turkmen history prior to Russian engagement. However, from the 13th to the 16th centuries, Turkmen formed a distinct ethnolinguistic group[citation needed]. As the Turkmen migrated from the area around the Mangyshlak Peninsula in contemporary Kazakhstan toward the Iranian border region and the Amu Darya basin, tribal Turkmen society further developed cultural traditions that became the foundation of Turkmen national consciousness.[c

@Onur, if you intend to make statements based on basic (and questanable) historical knowledge, rather than actual genetic tests on the remains of historical people, at least be aware that Turkic migration from Central Asia to Turkey is not something that happened a thousand years ago, but continuous to the 20th century.

I agree with Dienekes that Turkmenistan looks to be mostly Turkifeid Iranians.

Dieneke, an error occurred while sending this post, so I am resending it. Sorry if it arrives to your queue multiple times.

Anatolian Turkmen, it is clear that you are ignorant of Central Asian history, as you make what is now Turkmenistan Turkic before the Seljuq/original Turkic migration from what is now Kazakhstan, which began in the 11th century, so it is you who is re-writing history per your wishes. The source you cite for your claim is a very faultily and poorly written Wikipedia article (it is not something unusual for Wikipedia, which is a website that can accept the writings of an elementary schoolchild!). The sentence that mentions Turkmens in what is now Turkmenistan before the Seljuq times has no citation for its claim, as is clear from the citation needed tag attached to it. Next time cite a reliable source for your claim please (if you can find :D). As for your claim that Turks of Turkey trace their roots to what is now Turkmenistan, this is a baseless claim. Khorasan origin claims were recently popularized in Turkey in order to give people a sense of pride, as Khorasan is a region historically associated with some Islamic orders and Islamic saints (all Persian BTW) thus has religious importance. As for the Turkic language classifications, 1000 years ago all Central Asian Turkic languages were much closer to each other than they are today so much so that they were at most dialects of the same Central Asian Turkic language, so those classifications have no relevance for 1000 years ago.

Altay, what I write about the sequence and timing of Turkic migrations are basic knowledge in history and even a person with a little knowledge about these topics knows these facts. If you and Anatolian Turkmen don't know these facts, it is not my problem. As for your claim of a continuous Turkic migration up to the 20th century to what is now Turkey, what is your evidence for that (I have yet to see any evidence for that claim)?

This is what Mr. Metspalu, one of the lead authors of both the Behar et al. 2010 and Yunusbayev 2011 papers, wrote to me on the topic of Turkification based on their genetic analysis results of the Behar/Yunusbayev Turks, who are all Turks exclusively from the historic Cappadocia region, during our 3-month and still continuing email correspondence:

"Turkic migration from Central Asia to Turkey is not something that happened a thousand years ago, but continuous to the 20th century"

This is false the migration begun in around 1070 and ended around 1280 (please read works of historian cohn and toynbee about the Turkic migrations)

Anatolian Turkmen ,unawaredly the post you wrote (reread below) makes clear that "turkmens" of the 7 th century (by turkmens the author speaks about iranian inhabitants of modern turkmenia) were not Turks and that Turks did came to Turkmenistan from Kazakistan as late as the 13th centuryand they were few nomad and warriors to cause an important Turk genetical input on Turkmenia Iranian populationAlso please notice that the Seljuks were Iranian by mothertongue and culture, the Turks did not enmasse move westward until the Mongol Genkiskhan raidsThe Turkmen language uses "th" for "s" and "dh" for "d" and that must be a substratal influence of middle Persian (wich did have the sounds "th" and "dh" wich evolved into "s" and "d" in modern Persian)

"As the Turkmen migrated from the area around the Mangyshlak Peninsula in contemporary Kazakhstan toward the Iranian border region and the Amu Darya basin, tribal Turkmen society further developed cultural traditions that became the foundation of Turkmen national consciousness"+"In the 7th century AD, Arabs conquered this region, bringing with them Islam and incorporating the Turkmen into the greater Middle Eastern culture.[citation needed] The Turkmenistan region soon came to be known as the capital of Greater Khorasan, when the caliph Al-Ma'mun moved his capital to Merv"

Dahistan (modern Turkmenia) is culturally and genetically Iranian since day one it's one of the sites of the BMAC

Own uzbek and turkmen archeologists and anthropologists trace the cultural and genetical ethnogenesis of tadjiks+turkmens+uzbeks+kyrgyzes to Iranian BMAC

Anyway please read the 2 books I posted (they cost less than 20$) and you will understand the whole picture based on firsthand sources

mr anatolian turkmen, wikipedia is not a source please read the books I posted when Arabs came they met various Iranians and not Turks

"Turkification took place first in Turkmenistan but then these Turks conquered Anatolia. The genetic evidence seems to suggest that the mass immigration from Turkmen lands to Anatolia must have been 30 to 50% of the initial Anatolian population."

Turkification was a linguistic phenomenon not a population replacement otherwise we will have same genetical makeup for yakuts, turkmens, uzbeks, salars, etc...Tadjiks with less Turko-Mongol input than Turkmens retained their Iranic tongue

By common sense there could not been such a huge migration of 4 mln Turks to Anatolia (firsthand sources available in the first book I posted)speaks of 80 thousand Turk males for the whole Iran-Azerbaidjan-Anatolia-Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan region (please read pages 80 and 81 of the book below)

http://www.kitapyurdu.com/kitap/default.asp?id=89658

also there is no hg's (Y-DNA+mt-DNA) match between Turks and Turkmens however there is a hg matching between Armenians and Anatolian TurksPLEASE READ THE 2 BOOKS

Well, one example would be enough to falsify your claim, but I'll give two Turkish posters from Anthrofora who stated they had recent ancestry (partial Kazakh and full Turkmen afaik) from the east of the Caspian: umit and Kipchak.

And since I can't post in the bat calculator thread, I am posting my response to Onur here:

How much do you know their places of origin? Only Dienekes know the places of origin of all of them. So please be serious. I am not a child you can fool.

For your information, several Turkish members of Dodecad are writing in fora like Anthroforum, Anthrocivitas and Anthroscape where they discuss themselves all the time.

Another thing is, like I said, these people are immigrants. One can't directly contact, for example 23andme, from Turkey. This alone would be enough to skew the representativeness even if it was perfect in the first place.

Well, one example would be enough to falsify your claim, but I'll give two Turkish posters from Anthrofora who stated they had recent ancestry (partial Kazakh and full Turkmen afaik) from the east of the Caspian: umit and Kipchak.

Are you joking? You think I am stupid to be convinced by your examples? You said there was continuous Turkic migration to what is now Turkey from Central Asia from the 11th century up to the 20th century. The truth is, there is a very small number of very recent (from the late 20th century at the earliest) Central Asian Turkic immigrants (they are mostly temporary as in the case of temporary workers and temporary students) in Turkey. But these all came in the era of modern transportation. Before the late 20th century, immigration from Central Asia to what is now Turkey was virtually null throughout all the centuries since the end of the original Turkmen migration probably sometime in the 13th century. BTW, today there are more Central Asian Turkic immigrants in many Western countries than in Turkey.

For your information, several Turkish members of Dodecad are writing in fora like Anthroforum, Anthrocivitas and Anthroscape where they discuss themselves all the time.

Another thing is, like I said, these people are immigrants. One can't directly contact, for example 23andme, from Turkey. This alone would be enough to skew the representativeness even if it was perfect in the first place.

Again you think I am stupid? Does it matter whether they are resident in Turkey or immigrants in other countries if they are all ethnic Turks? Also, ethnic Turkish immigrants throughout the world are descended from all over Turkey and the other lands of the former Ottoman Empire where ethnic Turks live, thus indeed a random group of two dozens of samples of ethnic Turkish immigrants are much more representative of the overall ethnic Turkish genetic variation than a group of samples of ethnic Turks exclusively from the historic Cappadocia region with a similar number of samples.

Useful software

You may cite, quote, or reproduce articles on this site for non-commercial purposes, provided that you attribute them to Dienekes Pontikos and provide a link either to the main page of this blog or to the individual blog entry you are referring to.